Trump Investigations Thread

[Abhorsen]

I wonder if the judge is wondering how she got the job?

She got the job via an election, so I doubt that. But if she'll still have a job is an open question. Terrence Bradley certainly won't have a job after all of this though.

 

[Zachowon]

No. You need to destroy the institution itself. The institution is the issue.

The forensics lab is pretty much the only good thing they bring. Make it it's own thing but it is still important.

As for the Georgia case, watch right now, the State Attorney is flailing and dying in closing.

Did they bring up the texts from Terrance?

 

[Abhorsen]

Closing arguments are done. The State's was a complete disaster. The judge at some point just stopped paying attention. The judge will issue his decision within two weeks.

The judge and defense believe that the appearance of impropriety is enough, while the state claims that an actual impropriety is needed.

Nate the Lawyer is betting on a disqualification, saying he can't see how their can't be a DQ. He has a very good record on predictions, but not perfect.

The forensics lab is pretty much the only good thing they bring. Make it it's own thing but it is still important.

Sure. But shove it somewhere else so the FBI as an institution can die.

Did they bring up the texts from Terrance?

Those were entered into evidence. The phone records are in limbo. The judge is hoping he won't need them, and can just give a decision without litigating that.

 

[Zachowon]

Closing arguments are done. The State's was a complete disaster. The judge at some point just stopped paying attention. The judge will issue his decision within two weeks.

The judge and defense believe that the appearance of impropriety is enough, while the state claims that an actual impropriety is needed.

Nate the Lawyer is betting on a disqualification, saying he can't see how their can't be a DQ. He has a very good record on predictions, but not perfect.


Sure. But shove it somewhere else so the FBI as an institution can die.


Those were entered into evidence. The phone records are in limbo. The judge is hoping he won't need them, and can just give a decision without litigating that.

The texts alone should be more then enough.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Can't find the j6 thread so dropping this here. They really went and did it.

First amendment is dead.

Watch: Biden's FBI leads investigative journalist away in cuffs after he exposed J6 lies

What they told you:

notthebee.com

Said it once I'll say it again

If you're in the FBi, you're a traitor.

It's a domestic terrorist organization and it needs to be shutdown and every agent vigorously investigated to make sure they didn't betray America outside of their thoughts.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

She got the job via an election, so I doubt that. But if she'll still have a job is an open question. Terrence Bradley certainly won't have a job after all of this though.

"...who votes for these fucking people?!"

 

[Vyor]

No. You need to destroy the institution itself. The institution is the issue.

As for the Georgia case, watch right now, the State Attorney is flailing and dying in closing.

A building, a name, can not be corrupt. The idea of the FBI is perfectly valid.

 

[Abhorsen]

A building, a name, can not be corrupt. The idea of the FBI is perfectly valid.

No, and institution can become corrupt or bad or ineffective, and the way forward is to tear it down. In fact, all institutions generally go this way. It's one of the strengths of capitalism, that things that can't compete die off. It opens up space for new growth and better stuff to happen.

The issue of not killing the institution and starting a new one is that the groove of corruptions now exists in that institution, like a cancer. If you don't excise all of the bad, it will come back. And politics won't let you carefully cut. So you destroy the institution. Let's end the FBI before it becomes the KGB instead of waiting for it to be too late.

 

[Vyor]

No, and institution can become corrupt or bad or ineffective, and the way forward is to tear it down. In fact, all institutions generally go this way. It's one of the strengths of capitalism, that things that can't compete die off. It opens up space for new growth and better stuff to happen.

The issue of not killing the institution and starting a new one is that the groove of corruptions now exists in that institution, like a cancer. If you don't excise all of the bad, it will come back. And politics won't let you carefully cut. So you destroy the institution. Let's end the FBI before it becomes the KGB instead of waiting for it to be too late.

That isn't how existence works. People can be corrupt, ideas can be corrupt, things can not be corrupt.

 

[Abhorsen]

That isn't how existence works. People can be corrupt, ideas can be corrupt, things can not be corrupt.

No, in fact an institution can be said to be corrupt. For example, governments with endemic bribery are considered corrupt.

More, the FBI is much closer to an idea than it is to a thing. The FBI can't be held, really. It's a mixture of an organization, its members, its legal power, and its reputation (and a few other things). Such an organization can be corrupt. Namely, if the organization no longer pursues its original purpose but instead some other purpose.

Just like a licensing office would be corrupt if it care more about receiving bribes than evaluating competence, the FBI became corrupt when it stopped being about pursuing crimes and instead about preserving the power of the FBI and other TLAs.

 

[Vyor]

No, in fact an institution can be said to be corrupt. For example, governments with endemic bribery are considered corrupt.

More, the FBI is much closer to an idea than it is to a thing. The FBI can't be held, really. It's a mixture of an organization, its members, its legal power, and its reputation (and a few other things). Such an organization can be corrupt. Namely, if the organization no longer pursues its original purpose but instead some other purpose.

Just like a licensing office would be corrupt if it care more about receiving bribes than evaluating competence, the FBI became corrupt when it stopped being about pursuing crimes and instead about preserving the power of the FBI and other TLAs.

And if you killed every single person there, would it still be corrupt?

 

[Abhorsen]

And if you killed every single person there, would it still be corrupt?

It wouldn't exist anymore then. I mean, it's one thing to ship of Theseus a board at a time. It's another to blow it up and construct a new Argo: no one claims that's the same.

But also, no one actually wants to get rid of all the parts of the FBI. The field agents are by and large fine, the crime lab is useful, etc. The issue is that if you keep those chunks around in the J Edgar Hoover Building with the same name and same powers, all you've done is created a managerial class hole for the managerial class to be rehired back. The same problems will occur again and again.

Instead, use Vivek's strategy: grab the useful chunks, move them to places, and close the agency entirely. It's simply not needed.

 

[Vyor]

It wouldn't exist anymore then. I mean, it's one thing to ship of Theseus a board at a time. It's another to blow it up and construct a new Argo: no one claims that's the same.

But also, no one actually wants to get rid of all the parts of the FBI. The field agents are by and large fine, the crime lab is useful, etc. The issue is that if you keep those chunks around in the J Edgar Hoover Building with the same name and same powers, all you've done is created a managerial class hole for the managerial class to be rehired back. The same problems will occur again and again.

Instead, use Vivek's strategy: grab the useful chunks, move them to places, and close the agency entirely. It's simply not needed.

Why do you need to change the name? Why do you want to risk spreading that corruption around?

 

[Abhorsen]

Why do you need to change the name? Why do you want to risk spreading that corruption around?

It's not about just the name. It's about the organization as a whole going away, name and all. You stop it existing and replace it with nothing. The agency as an organization is disappearing, parts are being kept. Afterwards, there's one less agency.


As for spreading corruption, that's not how corruption works in this case. So the FBI isn't corrupt because the agents are bribeable (they very much aren't). They are corrupt because the middle management has a different goal that the original intention of the FBI. That's just the brain being corrupt though, the hands and muscles work quite fine. A local field office isn't an issue, unless the get an order from higher up to, say, raid Mar-a-lago for classified documents. Those agents on the ground aren't the ones making that decision, they are just following orders.

And yes, I get following orders shouldn't be an excuse, and morally, it isn't. But as a practical matter, that's what most people do. And that applies double for cops, who are fired when they don't, promoted when they do, and the applicant pool is people who want to enforce order. So you have a bunch of normal quality organs, they just need a non-shit nervous system.


Also, the other advantage of the splitting of the FBI is that it's so much more politically feasible. You can sell it on not losing the results brought by the FBI and not be perceived as crazy.

 

[Vyor]

It's not about just the name. It's about the organization as a whole going away, name and all. You stop it existing and replace it with nothing. The agency as an organization is disappearing, parts are being kept. Afterwards, there's one less agency.


As for spreading corruption, that's not how corruption works in this case. So the FBI isn't corrupt because the agents are bribeable (they very much aren't). They are corrupt because the middle management has a different goal that the original intention of the FBI. That's just the brain being corrupt though, the hands and muscles work quite fine. A local field office isn't an issue, unless the get an order from higher up to, say, raid Mar-a-lago for classified documents. Those agents on the ground aren't the ones making that decision, they are just following orders.

And yes, I get following orders shouldn't be an excuse, and morally, it isn't. But as a practical matter, that's what most people do. And that applies double for cops, who are fired when they don't, promoted when they do, and the applicant pool is people who want to enforce order. So you have a bunch of normal quality organs, they just need a non-shit nervous system.


Also, the other advantage of the splitting of the FBI is that it's so much more politically feasible. You can sell it on not losing the results brought by the FBI and not be perceived as crazy.

You're objectively wrong on all points.

1. One less agency doesn't actually help anything, at all; particularly since the powers still exist in those agencies you say its useful parts should go to.

2. The agents are corrupt as fuck, remember the multiple agents that framed people in the Trump admin? Even without orders from on high?

3. Splitting the FBI is harder to do than announcing a "sweeping anti-corruption action." I mean, fuck, that doesn't even require an act of congress (which dissolving it completely does require).

 

[Cherico]

It's not about just the name. It's about the organization as a whole going away, name and all. You stop it existing and replace it with nothing. The agency as an organization is disappearing, parts are being kept. Afterwards, there's one less agency.


As for spreading corruption, that's not how corruption works in this case. So the FBI isn't corrupt because the agents are bribeable (they very much aren't). They are corrupt because the middle management has a different goal that the original intention of the FBI. That's just the brain being corrupt though, the hands and muscles work quite fine. A local field office isn't an issue, unless the get an order from higher up to, say, raid Mar-a-lago for classified documents. Those agents on the ground aren't the ones making that decision, they are just following orders.

And yes, I get following orders shouldn't be an excuse, and morally, it isn't. But as a practical matter, that's what most people do. And that applies double for cops, who are fired when they don't, promoted when they do, and the applicant pool is people who want to enforce order. So you have a bunch of normal quality organs, they just need a non-shit nervous system.


Also, the other advantage of the splitting of the FBI is that it's so much more politically feasible. You can sell it on not losing the results brought by the FBI and not be perceived as crazy.

man the FBI didn't start out good and become corrupt it was corrupt from the get go.

 

[Abhorsen]

1. One less agency doesn't actually help anything, at all; particularly since the powers still exist in those agencies you say its useful parts should go to.

No, it absolutely does. The issues with numerous agencies is that you have more of the managerial class. They are what change the direction of the FBI away from what was intended by those who enacted the law towards how it is used now.

2. The agents are corrupt as fuck, remember the multiple agents that framed people in the Trump admin? Even without orders from on high?

They did have orders from on high. Oh, it wasn't explicit orders, but they were there.

3. Splitting the FBI is harder to do than announcing a "sweeping anti-corruption action." I mean, fuck, that doesn't even require an act of congress (which dissolving it completely does require).

A "sweeping anti-corruption action" won't do anything. The type of corruption at the FBI isn't illegal, anymore than congressional stock trading is. Even just a mass firing of middle management won't do much, as more biased middle management will replace them.

man the FBI didn't start out good and become corrupt it was corrupt from the get go.

There were certainly corrupt parts, but it wasn't used to control the office of the presidency before.

 

[Vyor]

No, it absolutely does. The issues with numerous agencies is that you have more of the managerial class. They are what change the direction of the FBI away from what was intended by those who enacted the law towards how it is used now.

Multiple agencies also means that you can partially contain and investigate corruption. An individual police force can be corrupt, but if all of them are corrupt you have bigger problems.

They did have orders from on high. Oh, it wasn't explicit orders, but they were there.

Then they are just as corrupt as those above them.

A "sweeping anti-corruption action" won't do anything. The type of corruption at the FBI isn't illegal, anymore than congressional stock trading is. Even just a mass firing of middle management won't do much, as more biased middle management will replace them.

So you're saying that we should press the delete button on every single federal agency? There are no good people who are qualified, in the entire country, that could replace them? And it's impossible to ever ever ever have anyone in charge that isn't corrupt just because it's named something?

 

[Abhorsen]

Multiple agencies also means that you can partially contain and investigate corruption. An individual police force can be corrupt, but if all of them are corrupt you have bigger problems.

Cool. But we just did that, and we found corruption in a police force. If you don't remove it, it will stay corrupt.

Also, we have way more police agencies than we need right now, so I'm not worried about redundancy. Finally, I didn't say don't make a new one. Just don't make it the FBI again. make something wildly different.

Then they are just as corrupt as those above them.

Then all cops are corrupt. You can't theoretical this away: most cops just do what they are told. There is no solution to that. You need to work within what reality allows, or go nuclear and fire all cops.

So you're saying that we should press the delete button on every single federal agency? There are no good people who are qualified, in the entire country, that could replace them? And it's impossible to ever ever ever have anyone in charge that isn't corrupt just because it's named something?

Oh, they are certainly people who are qualified who could replace them. But they won't, as they are also qualified to do other things, and aren't particularly motivated to join an organization they believe corrupt. Who joins a corrupt organization? Corrupt people.

I also said nothing about other organizations. Like the ATF isn't corrupt: they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. It's just that their job is one that shouldn't be done. The Marshals and Secret Service (counterfeiting) also do their jobs well.

As for the name, that's not really my issue. It just comes with the organization and power and respect of the FBI. But the current FBI deserves no power or respect.

Look, maybe you could actually reform the FBI. But the issue is getting the political will to actually accomplish this. And what will happen is you'll ask for a reform, and get a tenth: just a change of the guy at the top. Nothing will be fixed. More, you option doesn't just need political will, it needs political will over a long period of time. You don't have that (no one in the US does), as elections happen and political will goes away.

Instead, one drastic change is the way to operate in politics, unless you are the creeping bureaucracy.

 

[Vyor]

Cool. But we just did that, and we found corruption in a police force. If you don't remove it, it will stay corrupt.

You remove the corruption, not the fact the police exist in that area.

Then all cops are corrupt. You can't theoretical this away: most cops just do what they are told. There is no solution to that. You need to work within what reality allows, or go nuclear and fire all cops.

Training, oversight, logical decisions.

I also said nothing about other organizations. Like the ATF isn't corrupt: they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. It's just that their job is one that shouldn't be done. The Marshals and Secret Service (counterfeiting) also do their jobs well.

Murdering children is what the ATF is supposed to do? News to me.